|
Flap and others have it correct. To just say that the ESA is wrong will get us nowhere. The current strategy to "adjust" the Piping Plover Recovery Plan to allow CCNS & the two local towns to manage both birds and access was based on just that theory. Federal officials continue to push those working on this issue to go for a section 10 permit which would allow for "take" of a bird and this is not what the "pro access" reps want to happen. Unfortunately, it may come down to that being our only option, however we feel that because the Northeast Flyway has been above the "Recovery Goal" of nesting pairs for over ten years, then we should have some relief in the plan. If the whole coast was at the "Recovery Goal", then the whole plan would trigger an automatic shift from protection to management of the species. It gets worse because the actual data on these birds is turning out to be dead wrong with regard to where they will and will not nest. When the interdunal roat to the lighthouse closed becsuse there were two (I think) nest on it, the long held belief that Plovers would not nest anywhere but between the Dunes and the shoreline was shatterred. The scientists can not admit to the theory that the CCNS is actually becoming overcrwded as far as the Plover Population because this would give ammunition to those that beleive we should move into the management phase on CCNS. I get baffled because I would think the Plover Advocates would want to herald this info and would want to use CCNS as a model for other areas. A declaration of recovery, even in the one state, would give them some clout to force protections in other areas on the coast, however it would trigger management here at CCNS. I for one beleive both Man and Plover can co exist on the beach, but we have a lot of work to prove that and then get a couple of competeing government agencies to agree.
|
Threaded Mode